Carbon Tax Persuasive Essay

Currently, the Canadian government is taking several initiatives to control climate change. In 2017, Canada signed the Paris Accord and agreed to cut 30% of carbon emissions by 2030.

Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa law and economics professor and chair of the green economy think-tank Sustainable Prosperity suggests that British Columbia’s per-capita fuel usage had fallen more than 4 per cent compared with the rest of Canada and its economy (Ebner, McCarthy, 2011) Evidently it is reducing the amount of green house gasses emitted by fossil fuel use. However this is not the concern many had with the introduction of the tax, but the concerns were focused upon the externalities caused by this and the effects it would have on the economy. Three years since the carbon tax introduction and the Provincial level of GDP has remained approximately the same, (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner) With the provincial level of GDP remaining around the same, this suggests that at the very worst the carbon tax has had no negative effects to the provincial economy. Furthermore the tax also promised to remain carbon neutral and promised to cut corporate and private income tax. British Columbia has become the province with the lowest income tax regime and the lowest corporate tax regime (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner). Although the carbon tax is being praised by many, it still faces concerns as many still argue the ineffectiveness of the tax and what that means for the province.

Air pollution is a major threat to the atmosphere, causing damages to the environment by emitting harmful substance to human health. Alberta has become a vulnerable society that has resulted in an increase rate of illness caused by poor air quality from asthma to lung cancer. Although Alberta is one of Canada’s largest growing industries, Alberta produces the most greenhouse gas emissions, which has made Alberta to position as the worst air quality management in the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (Esrd.alberta.ca).

The main purpose of the carbon tax is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. It would be unreasonable to ignore this environmental problem, because British Columbia is located in the region which is highly affected by the climate change impacts like flooding and wildfires. Therefore, B.C. government

Replace Cap & Trade Carbon Tax with environmentally responsible initiatives which reinvest revenue in Northern Ontario, a Carbon Tax placed on imports from excessive carbon producing countries of 10%.

While the Alberta oil sands are critical to the Canadian economy, environmental policies must be strengthened in order to diminish the immense risk in the transportation of crude oil, the harming of human health, and the deterioration of the surrounding

Air pollution is huge globally. With the earth warming and looking at the future and all the problems were going to have if this isn't fixed soon. Most countries are trying hard while some and Canada aren't trying as hard. The reasons of air pollution are cars, factories, land filth, etc. There are about 10 million Canadians at risk from exposure to traffic pollution. You may not think that's a lot, but Canada has a population of about 35.16 million people. So there about ⅓ of at risk while the others are still exposed to traffic pollution. If eco-rights was in the charter of rights then there would be less air pollution. If they put a taxes on carbon then it's a win-win. Because then fewer people will be buying cars that take oil. They will buy more hydrogen vehicles and electric cars. Then there will be more companies that make those kinds of cars, and they will make more money because more people buying them. There will also be less oil being pumped out, which will cause less environmental issues. Over time, there will be less carbon in the air and the earth won’t be warming as fast. Also, Canadians would have the right to clean

It is also important to recognize Canada and in particular Alberta’s dependence on the development of natural resources to be economically secure. In the past resource development has had less tangible consequences with smaller populations, less advanced extraction methods, and inability to access reserves. In a contemporary setting it appears that natural non-renewable resources are being rapidly depleted in a sequential manor by their most economically redeemable characteristics. Michele Heng, Keith Hipel, and Liping Fang also validate this argument in their paper that the rapid oil sand development does not consider future generations economic, social, and environmental well being. This displays many clear intersections present the issue of oil and gas development in Alberta. The ramifications however can be seen across provinces and globally. The pollution resulting from form the tar sands effects water sheds and ecosystems that are nation wide. A new discussion and analysis of not only the long-term adverse environmental implications, but also the political and socio-economic inequities is needed (Heng, M. Kipel, K. Fang, L. pg. 1137). This change in discourse and policy is discussed as well by Jeff Galius in An Act of Deception. Galius emphasizes the need for a scientific based creation of a strong environmental assessment

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

The Climate Leadership Plan in both Federal and Provincial Governments (Alberta, BC, and Federal) impose restrictions and carbon tax leading to increased administration costs and reduced profitability.

An article from Chris Nelson (2015, December 10) frames the agreement as a waste of time, beginning with the words: “So imagine what 36,276 men and women accomplished in Paris these last weeks to deal with another global threat - climate change, if you answered ‘not much,’ then grab the first-prize ribbon.” These openly biased attacks on pro-environment initiatives are examples of how oil is framed in a way that legitimizes itself and rejects climate leadership to the degree where helping the environment is framed as a tactic to appear virtuous for other jurisdictions. Coverage from August of the same year reinforces the partiality of a paper that believes the government’s climate change adaptation strategies have little to do with humanitarian motives. To illustrate, Priaro (2015, August 22) writes, “there is little need for government to intervene to reduce the rate of increase in GHG emissions from Alberta with a misguided, unnecessary and debilitating climate-change plan that will only lead us to an economic dead end.” Journalist David Marsden (2015, January 6) follows, “we don’t need to create more means of harming our economic competitiveness” when speaking about climate change adaptation in Alberta. He continues to claim that the Premier “and her ragtag band of brothers and sisters in cabinet [are] intent on social engineering us to economic death” (ibid). The Calgary Herald was not entirely pessimistic; there is

In February 2011, the Australian federal government declared a scheme to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1, 2012. Implementing this scheme has generated a controversial debate between Australians. The term “Carbon tax” refers to an environmental tax forcing polluters to pay per ton of carbon which they release into the atmosphere. This essay will provide the economical, social and political implication of carbon taxes, also with its introduction who will benefit and who would suffer.

However, the Gillard government has instituted one fairly radical and controversial policy: the new imposed carbon tax which took effect on July 1, 2012. The tax requires 500 of Australia's top polluting companies to "pay a fixed price, starting at Aus$23 per tonne, for their carbon dioxide emissions for the first three years. The mechanism would then shift

Liquefied natural gas has garnered both substantial support and extensive opposition. The BC Liberal party has promoted LNG. In 2013, then BC Premier Christy Clark announced the establishment of the BC Prosperity Fund, which would create new jobs and decrease the provincial debt through the development of LNG projects. The BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has been vocal against LNG, worrying that the development of projects like this will significantly set BC back in terms of decreasing its carbon emissions. The recently elected BC NDP government has stated that that it will “increase the environmental obligations for LNG companies that want to do business in the province,” meaning that the NDP’s will conditionally be supporting LNG projects.

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.